Re: GIVE permission system

Mark W. Oosterveld (
Thu, 06 Oct 1994 18:09:07 +0000

> I neglected to make such an announcement for g1; my mistake.
> Now, some players who have just noticed the lack of GIVE checking
> insist that it's well within the scope of the rules to use GIVE
> as a military option, despite the fact that I asked them not to.
> (So much for my thinking that it is so clearly a gap in the permission
> system and an abuse to use GIVE in this way that no reasonable gamer
> would do so)
> Anyway. What shall I do?
> o Make an announcement that this use of GIVE is "against
> the rules", and shouldn't be done?

In a perfect world, but I don't think so. It would be the same "policy"
decisions you said you would not do for SWEAR.
> o Tie GIVE to ADMIT status?

Actually, even though I didn't see this in the rules, for a short time, I
assumed this was the case. It's the easiest, but the least flexable.

> o Make a parallel admit-like thing for GIVE (say, "RECEIVE")

Makes the most sense to me. Any giving would usually be negotiated anyway.

> o Replace the whole mess with a DECLARE level or bit-set.

Nah. Seems too big a change, when RECIEVE would handle it.

> --
> Rich Skrenta <>

An other suggestion: In cities, some kind of NPC arbitrator would be neat.
This would be usefull when dealing with strangers, or even anonymously. As
example, "I will give xxx this if he gives me that". Sort of an expanded
Market. I know this would be difficult, but I think it would add to the
game. Hmm... maybe it would be a good player controled noble job. For a fee...


Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links